Veteran journalist Kwesi Pratt Jnr has defended restrictions on preaching in commercial vehicles, arguing that passengers should not be compelled to listen to religious messages during their journeys.
Speaking on Accra-based Metro TV on Wednesday, October 14, amid controversy over the proposed ban on preaching and hawking in commercial vehicles, Mr Pratt Jr said the 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, including the right to practise any religion or to have no religious belief.
“I think it’s important to look at the 1992 Constitution. It governs everything. It’s the supreme law of the land. And the 1992 Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience. Everybody is free to belong to whatever religion they choose, to believe whatever they believe, and also not to believe,” he said.
Mr Pratt Jr questioned the basis for allowing preaching in public transport when passengers may belong to different religious groups or hold different beliefs.
“So if you say that commercial transport should be free, for spreading the gospel, which gospel?” he asked.
He gave an example of a bus travelling from Accra to Kumasi with a traditional priest, a Pentecostal Christian, a Bahá’í believer, a Hindu and a Muslim on board, each wanting to share their religious beliefs.
“Can you imagine the confusion on the bus?” he asked, insisting that passengers should be able to travel without being subjected to religious messages they may not wish to hear.
Mr Pratt Jr said the stress of long-distance travel was already considerable, with journeys to Kumasi sometimes taking six hours, and argued that unsolicited preaching could add to passengers’ discomfort.
He also criticised preachers who, he said, board buses without paying and deliver messages that frighten passengers with descriptions of fatal road accidents and claims that prayer is the only way to prevent them.
“The journey itself is stressful,” he said, describing what he considers an additional burden on both passengers and drivers.
He questioned why opposition to the proposed restriction should be framed as an attack on Christianity, arguing that the issue was whether individuals had the right to impose their beliefs on others in a shared public space.
“I have a right to also believe what I want to believe. Why should they be allowed to impose their beliefs on me?” he asked.
Mr Pratt maintained that religious freedom should not give anyone the authority to dictate how others should live or what they should listen to while travelling.
“You can’t come to my house and start telling me how to conduct my life and so on. It’s an infringement of my right,” he said, adding that “the bus station should be sanitized.”